And don't forget the legendary Margaret Sanger, who was the founder of this wonderful institution of women's health!

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
-Margaret Sanger

And don't forget the legendary Margaret Sanger, who was the founder of this wonderful institution of women's health!

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
-Margaret Sanger

Oddly enough, even though she was in favor or eugenics and forced sterilization of those she deemed too stupid to continue the human race, she was staunchly opposed to abortion because she viewed life beginning at conception.

... while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.

I'll have to respond to these tomorrow, but my main points I need to express at the moment are that 1) chicksontheright.com does not seem like an unbiased source to me and 2) if we're going to discuss the questionable and racist beliefs of a founder of a group that today does a lot of good, we could raise a lot of the same concerns about Mormonism. This discussion is about whether or not PP is worth our tax dollars, not whether or not the original founders had questionable opinions regarding black people.

[To be continued]

My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

CS made the point I wanted to make, but it doesnt stip there. Martin Luther was a raving anti-semite; towards the end of his life he wrote a pamphlet titled "Of the Jews and Their Lies" that fueled a lot of hatred towards Jews in Germany (and yes, some historians think the pamphlet may have influenced You-Know-Who). The fact of the matter is that lots of people were racist in the past in Europe and the US.

A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

The facts come into question when they aren't sourced within your website (some are, some arent, andO'm pooping at church so I need to get back to my computer to pick through the sites some more.). I trust chicksontheright about planned parenthood as much as I trust statements about pot from weedisthedevil.com or weedforlife420.net.

So what? What do you mean, so what? You can't eliminate bias, but you can do your best, and it looks like you typed "why is planned parenthood awful" and hit "I'm feeling lucky."

I hope when you come back to respond you'll address those items from Planned Parenthood instead of defending them by trying to shift the focus to something else.

I'm not shifting it, I was pointing out hypocrisy in assigning damnation to an organization based on the questionable beliefs of the founder. Great effort, though, it just needed a "drop the mic" statement

[Transmission interrupted]

[To be continued]

My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I thought the focus was shifted when the discussion turned from abortion to what the founder of the Planned Parenthood believed about a century ago.

The reason I brought that up is because there's a disturbing set of facts when it comes to Planned Parenthood. Did you know 80% of babies aborted there are black? Did you know that something like 2/3 of their locations are in low income, demographically black neighborhoods?

I'm not saying PP is out to commit genocide, but if Sanger were alive today, I think she'd be pleased by the results.

So what? What do you mean, so what? You can't eliminate bias, but you can do your best, and it looks like you typed "why is planned parenthood awful" and hit "I'm feeling lucky."

Oh I don't need to do that. Just watch the videos provided on the page and see for yourself. Those aren't actors. They're actual PP "counselors" advising people on how to get around the pesky laws and internal policies prohibiting abortion based on sex selection, underage prostitution and teaching underage girls how to be kinky with their boyfriends.

Makes no difference to me what sites you trust or why. The videos speak for themselves. If you want to ignore that by all means do what you have to in order to keep PP on that pedestal.

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

I thought the focus was shifted when the discussion turned from abortion to what the founder of the Planned Parenthood believed about a century ago.

The reason I brought that up is because there's a disturbing set of facts when it comes to Planned Parenthood. Did you know 80% of babies aborted there are black? Did you know that something like 2/3 of their locations are in low income, demographically black neighborhoods?

I'm not saying PP is out to commit genocide, but if Sanger were alive today, I think she'd be pleased by the results.

That may also be the demographic that utilizes the services the most often, too. Poorer people use PP in general as it is.

So what? What do you mean, so what? You can't eliminate bias, but you can do your best, and it looks like you typed "why is planned parenthood awful" and hit "I'm feeling lucky."

Oh I don't need to do that. Just watch the videos provided on the page and see for yourself. Those aren't actors. They're actual PP "counselors" advising people on how to get around the pesky laws and internal policies prohibiting abortion based on sex selection, underage prostitution and teaching underage girls how to be kinky with their boyfriends.

Makes no difference to me what sites you trust or why. The videos speak for themselves. If you want to ignore that by all means do what you have to in order to keep PP on that pedestal.

I'm not keeping PP on a pedestal, dude. I'm just not condemning everything they do. ...you do know that they offer myriad services aside from abortion, right? Women's health services that the poor would not have much access to otherwise? Anyway, I also specifically told you that I was going to go check the sites out as soon as I had time to properly assess them, but if you want to insist that I'm ignoring evidence, go ahead. I'm sorry I have a life outside of this discussion, although your defensiveness is starting to make me question whether or not there is a point in taking this conversation seriously

My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

That may also be the demographic that utilizes the services the most often, too. Poorer people use PP in general as it is.

Of course.

I'm not keeping PP on a pedestal, dude. I'm just not condemning everything they do. ...you do know that they offer myriad services aside from abortion, right? Women's health services that the poor would not have much access to otherwise?

Anyway, I also specifically told you that I was going to go check the sites out as soon as I had time to properly assess them, but if you want to insist that I'm ignoring evidence, go ahead. I'm sorry I have a life outside of this discussion, although your defensiveness is starting to make me question whether or not there is a point in taking this conversation seriously

I don't see that I'm being particularly defensive, but if you don't want to check out the sites you certainly don't have to, as I said.

And I don't understand how they don't call it murder.

They don't call it murder because people who follow the pro-choice path aren't monsters. They're people who have a sincere belief that the issue at hand is women's rights, and they don't regard an unborn baby as a full-fledged human being. Thus, there's no justifiable reason to call it murder, from their perspective.

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

(I didn't intend the link to be unbiased. Like I said, I happened to read it and it fit perfectly with the topic. If you have an article explaining why that woman wasn't allowed to stay at the abortion clinic to wait for her ride, though, feel free to link it.)

This discussion is about whether or not PP is worth our tax dollars, not whether or not the original founders had questionable opinions regarding black people.

"Questionable opinions?" She was a staunch eugenicist who basically believed that if you didn't fit in what she felt was ideal - namely, an "educated" white person - then you should be sterilized or otherwise prevented to breed. A sentiment shared by some progressives even today, I might add....

For the record, I'm of the opinion that PP shouldn't be receiving federal funding either, but mostly because it's a for-profit industry. I'm not arguing that they don't offer health services (other than infanticide) to help their communities - I just don't think we should be the ones paying for it - especially in light of their questionable moral decisions. ArcticFox posted some of these above, and those are just a few of the non-abortion exaples from the organization.

CS made the point I wanted to make, but it doesnt stip there. Martin Luther was a raving anti-semite; towards the end of his life he wrote a pamphlet titled "Of the Jews and Their Lies" that fueled a lot of hatred towards Jews in Germany (and yes, some historians think the pamphlet may have influenced You-Know-Who). The fact of the matter is that lots of people were racist in the past in Europe and the US.

Good point, but this is getting off-topic. However, I do agree that it's worthwhile to examine the position of a group's founders and what they stood for. Then compare it with the actions and practices of the group since that time. Have they learned from their mistakes and evolved since then, or have they gotten worse? In the case of Planned Parenthood, I would say that they've gotten worse in terms of their moral stances, but better at publicity.

Good point, but this is getting off-topic. However, I do agree that it's worthwhile to examine the position of a group's founders and what they stood for. Then compare it with the actions and practices of the group since that time. Have they learned from their mistakes and evolved since then, or have they gotten worse? In the case of Planned Parenthood, I would say that they've gotten worse in terms of their moral stances, but better at publicity.

I think the question specifically was whether or not Planned Parenthood still advocates for racism and eugenics today. Other moral issues aside I don't think they have continued to do so. I'm guessing that is why the argument of the original founder's views is no longer helpful because it does not represent the current views of the organization.

Perhaps a far more helpful argument would be the fact that the Norma McCorvey, the Roe in Roe vs. Wade, is now a Roman Catholic and a staunch opponent of abortion...

Person 2: "But <person> also <supported Nazis, said horrible thing, fill in the blank which is not the entirety of X>! So therefore Person 1 supports <bad thing>!"

No it doesn't. By that logic, if Bill Cosby is found guilty of all rape accusations against him, we can never enjoy The Cosby Show again without being seen as pro-rapist.

Or quoting anything by Henry Ford (or even buying Ford products) will get you accused of Nazism, because Ford was anti-semitic.

I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning is an affront to, well, reason.

I'm not trying to defend Hillary Clinton here (Will be voting for someone else, but not going to say who as this is not a presidential election topic), but if you are going to criticize someone, at least use something that is actually critique-worthy. Saying you admire someone's Courage, Tenacity, and Vision does not in ANY WAY imply that you also agree 100% with everything they said. Heck, I very much admire the military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower, but I do not think I would vote for him if he ran today (and was still alive and able to run...).